u/FrostyTheSnowman15

Hello everyone. Here is how I voted on the second June docket. I am a bit tired, and this docket was a bit longer, so unfortunately I won't be going into as much depth as last time. Here is how I voted.

Devolution Amendment Regarding Provincial Autonomy: Yea

Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10NgOTK3745ETJTfsb5Jip4StFQDd43sBLXZe3r4-xfs/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.izwrmear7sk

Amended Amended AMENDED Drug Legislation Act: Yea

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/s/lPpNeS3ekh

Motion to Reinstate the Worker's Freedom and Democracy Act: Nay

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/s/wGfwv1SQ14

Explanation (felt needed, this was a tough vote): I strongly support the principles of workplace democracy and the collective ownership of the means of production. However, I believe collective means that both labor and capital have a seat at the table. I did not support the provision allowing workers to get rid of capital altogether and transition to a worker owned cooperative. I instead think workers should be given the chance to buy out their workplace at a discount if it is going bankrupt or about to be shipped oversees. I find that a much more ethical way to encourage worker ownership, a goal I find admirable.

DOR Connections Academy Act: Yea

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/comments/1u8gvjk/dor_connections_academy_act/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Cabinet Education Plan Amendment: Yea

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/s/jj4MEtlz1h

Reproposal: Abolish the Board of Governors Amendment: Yea

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/s/LeQMhcpO9W

The Volograd-Snowman Monopoly Prevention Act: Yea

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/comments/1uajfts/the_vologradsnowman_monopoly_prevention_act/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Reproposed: Airforce Expansion Act: Yea

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/s/uOvkWFsudy

June 2026 Federal Budget and Appropriations Act: Yea

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/s/HgZXWaW3AV

Thank you for reading. If you have any further questions, please let me know!

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/comments/1uajfts/the_vologradsnowman_monopoly_prevention_act/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to announce to you that I have taken action with my friend CerisVG to address a new problem facing our great nation. That problem being a concentration of power in the hands of the few.

What this bill does is ensure that our nation abides be a common sense principle: Too big to fail is too big to exist.

We will ensure that no single entity can either directly or indirectly exert dominant control over more than 50% of an industry by giving the Politburo the tools to regulate these monopolies and force them to divest their assets if it is deemed necessary. The Politburo may additionally classify an entity as exercising dominant control if they are found to possess sufficient ownership to to effect the function of critical infrastructure, or if they are found to be impairing government functions or undermining market competition.

This bill will ensure that our nation remains a nation, not a playground for big business. It will ensure that our markets are truly fair and competitive. It will lower prices for consumers, ensure adequate competition, and ensure a place for our small businesses.

An entity is given seven days to make an appeal with the Supreme Court. The court may uphold, modify, or overturn the decision.

Lastly, I'd like to give credit to CerisVG for writing most of this bill. Their efforts were invaluable. If anyone has any questions about this bill, feel free to ask!

* Signed

- FrostyTheSnowman15

Hello everyone! It is me. FrostyTheSnowman15. A short while ago, you all elected me to serve as a Member of Parliament. I have once before served in this role. But I was not nearly active enough. To ensure I do not fall into that same pitfall. I have decided to come to you today explaining how and why I voted on the five bills presented on the first June docket, and the special session docket. Most of these explanations will be pretty short, as these were relatively minor bills.

Bill 1:

Ground Water Protections Act - Yea

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/comments/1u4f55v/groundwater_protections_act/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Reason: I believe that it is a basic function of government to protect our national resources.

Bill 2:

The Metric System Standardization Act - Yea

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/s/L3pr5VSJa4

Reason: I believe that the DOR should have a universal system of measurement to ensure everyone is on the same page.

Bill 3:

I don't want to smell your smoke act - Yea

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/comments/1u4oe66/i_dont_want_to_smell_your_smoke_act/

Reason: I believe that regulating public smoking is in the best interest of the public health

Bill 4:

National Media Act - Yea

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/comments/1u4xf46/national_media_act/

Reason: I believe that the creation of a national, educational media station will encourage our populace to learn and become more educated.

Bill 5:

Gun Rights Amendment Act - Yea

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/comments/1u5nped/gun_rights_amendment_act/

Reason: I support common sense gun reform. I believe that this bill strikes a good balance by ensuring people must show competence while also not outright banning any weapons.

Lastly, here is the bill we voted on in the special session docket.

The New Economic Plan - Nay

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DOR_Legislature/comments/1u6r35t/the_new_economic_plan/

Reason: This is a long one lol. I will explain my primary faults with this bill itself, as well as my problems with the idea of a Communist system in general.

First, for my primary faults with the bill:

1. I believe that the proposed corporate tax is too high. We should have a three tiered corporate tax system. Small businesses (under 100 employees) should be taxed at 15%, medium businesses (under 250 employees) should be taxed at 25%, and large businesses (250 employees or more) should be taxed at 35%. I also believe that micro-enterprises (under 10 employees) should be taxed at 10%.
2. I believe that the top rates of income tax are too high. Tax brackets I-6 to I-8 should be lowered to these respective amounts:

I-6: Should go from 50% to 40%

I-7: Should go from 70% to 50%

I-8: Should go from 80% to 60%

Most of my other faults with this bill can be traced to my problems with a Communist system. So I will explain that now:

I believe that a policy of Communism inevitably creates the same society that a policy of completely unfettered Capitalism on the exact opposite side would create. It creates a society in which a small cabal of elites have near complete control of society. In this case: The government. In the case of unfettered Capitalism: A select few large corporations. It creates a society in which ordinary people have very little power over their own lives. I believe that giving any one entity this much control over people will inevitably lead to corruption, abuse of power, and tyranny. I also believe it to be a moral failure. People are individuals. They deserve to control their own lives and their own destiny. Thus, I find a Communist system completely unacceptable.

I hope you found this informative and a good read. I will do this after voting on every legislative docket for the remainder of my term. Feel free to tell me what votes you think I got right, and which ones you think I got wrong. I am perfectly happy to engage in open debate and discussion!

* Signed

- FrostyTheSnowman15

In order (and explained):

1. Clement Attlee - I believe that Clement Attlee is the best Post-War UK Prime Minister. He created the modern welfare state, helped found NATO, and did his best to keep Britain a world power. I think he was the most transformational leader (at least, in a positive way) that Britain has had Post-WW2. Thus, he is the one and only Prime Minister who goes into S tier.

2. Winston Churchill (2nd Ministry) - This is only for Post-War UK Prime Ministers. So we are only ranking his second Ministry. Churchill largely played the same role that Eisenhower did in the United States. An elder statesmen, aiming to manage a turbulent state of foreign affairs, while largely accepting the left-wing economic consensus. I believe he played this role very well, so he goes in second. I think his second Ministry is very underrated simply because it isn't anywhere as good as his first. But I think a competent manager is still a very important thing to have.

3. Harold Wilson - I believe that Harold Wilson was a very good and competent leader. He is my personal favorite among all UK Prime Ministers, so I will concede that he is perhaps being slightly overrated. He ushered in an era of social reform. Abolishing capital punishment, outlawing racial discrimination, ending stage censorship, decriminalizing homosexuality, relaxing divorce laws, allowing access to abortion up to 28 weeks in the case of threat to the mothers physical/mental health or a severe fetal abnormality. I believe these reforms to be a positive thing. He was also responsible for keeping Britain out of Vietnam. Lastly, he created the Ministry of Technology, the Department of Economic Affairs, and helped modernize the education system. However, his second Ministry was quite turbulent. So I figured putting him at #3 was the right way to go.

4. Harold Macmillan - He basically played the same role as Churchill. However I believe that Churchill inherited a more turbulent situation, and Wilsons more transformational leadership lead me to put him below the two. This rounds out A tier.

5. Tony Blair - Tony Blair implemented a lot of good policies that are mostly overshadowed by the Iraq War. These include a national minimum wage, more investments into the NHS and education, the negotiation of the 1998 Good Friday agreement, the Human Rights Act of 1998, and the Civil Partnership Act of 2004. However, did have some more questionable policies, and his choice to go into Iraq was obviously a disastrous decision. Even if I give him some slack for essentially being tricked.

6. Gordon Brown - He mostly continued Blair era domestic policies, and I think he did a very good job at handling the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis and the Iraq War. He goes slightly below Blair. This rounds out B tier.
   Edward Heath - He got Britain into the EEC. For which I give him a lot of credit. However, the rest of his Ministry is marred by turbulence and instability. So I cannot put him anywhere above C tier.

7. Edward Heath - He got Britain into the EEC. For which I give him a lot of credit. However, the rest of his Ministry is marred by turbulence and instability. So I cannot put him anywhere above C tier.

8. James Callaghan - James Callaghan is someone who I feel very sympathetic to. He inherited a very turbulent situation that I don't believe anyone was able to solve. He is basically British Jimmy Carter. So I put him in D tier, just like I would Jimmy carter.

9. Rishi Sunak - Rishi Sunak is basically the Tory version of James Callaghan. He inherited a total disaster and did his best to keep things together. However, I'd argue that he failed to do so. And that showed in the 2024 UK general election. Ultimately, I decided to put him right below Callaghan.

10. John Major - Major is roughly on the same level of Callaghan and Sunak. However, his cabinet was marred by scandal. Including a few extramarital affairs and the "Cash for Questions" scandal. As well as divisions over Europe. I decided to put him right below Callaghan and Sunak.

11. David Cameron - David Cameron is responsible for allowing the vote on Brexit. Which has proven to be an utter disaster. I'd argue austerity also turned out to be a disaster. However, he did oversee the legalization of same-sex marriage. This keeps him out of the lower tiers, but he is still much worse then the other three in D tier.

12. Margaret Thatcher - I already know this is going to be the most controversial placement in this whole tier list. But I believe Margaret Thatcher to be one of the most overly lionized (at least among Conservatives) and most fraudulent political figures in a generation. The economic "recovery" that she oversaw was (in my view) largely due to North Sea Oil turning Britain into a net oil exporter around 1981. Even then, Thatcher was still the most unpopular Prime Minister in history until the Falklands war. I'd argue she was also helped by fucking Michael Foot being her main opposition. Which promptly caused a lot of moderate Labour MPs to split off and form the Liberal-SDP alliance that got 25% of the vote (nearly surpassing Labour's 27%). Her later years were marked by the horrifically unpopular poll tax and an ongoing recession that started shortly before she left office. However, I do respect her role as a transformational leader, and she certainly wasn't incompetent in the same way the people below her are. So I decided to give Thatcher her own tier to keep her out of the bottom.

I'm getting a bit tired of writing, so I'll try to get these last ones over with quick. All of these PMs had relatively short tenures, ridden by scandals and incompetence.

13. Theresa May - Lost her majority and pretty much failed to get anything done. But she wasn't as scandal ridden and incompetent as the rest of these Prime Ministers.

14. Boris Johnson - Boris Johnson helped nuke the UK economy with Brexit. He also oversaw Partygate and promoted Chris Pincher despite knowing about his sexual misconduct allegations., among some other, more minor scandals. However, he is funny and I appreciated his strong support for Ukraine. Thus, I decided to put him above Anthony Eden.

15. Anthony Eden - Was responsible for the Suez Crisis. Which arguably marked the definitive end of Britain being a world superpower. Not much else to add here.

16. Liz Truss - Not much to say here. Just a complete disaster on all fronts.

We also have one more. Although it isn't really a ranking:

N/A. Alec Douglas-Home - He wasn't even PM for a full year. Thus, I decided he would remain unranked in this tier list.

That concludes my list. I hope you found this an informative read. Feel free to tell me what you think I was right or wrong about in the replies. And of course, thank you for reading!

As you can see above I made a compass for both the Democratic and Republican Parties based on what I see as their main deciding factors. For the Democrats, this is whether they should take an Aggressive or Restrained approach. As well as whether or not they should shift to the left as the Progressives want, or remain the same/shift to the right as the Establishment wants. For the Republicans, this is whether or not they should embrace economic populism (tariffs, not deficit concerned, anti-corporate rhetoric, and maybe some mild economically left and/or pro-labor policies). Or economic orthodoxy (free trade, pro-business, deficit hawk approach). As well as whether or not they should become America First (isolationist, anti-war), or Neoconservative (hawkish, pro-intervention).

Here is my explanation for each placement. Starting with the Democrats:

AOC: This one seems obvious, she is a firebrand Progressive.

Bernie: He is also a Progressive, but he often takes steps to court moderate and conservative voters by arguing that his policies are “not radical”. He also praised Trump on the border when he went on Tim Dillon.

Ro Khanna: Ro Khanna has literally coined the term “Blue MAGA” and advocates for the Democratic party to try and court over Populist Republicans by embracing Left-Populism and avoiding overly woke/far-left-coded rhetoric. I did consider swapping him and Bernie, but I decided not to.

Hunter Biden: He isn’t really a serious political figure (not yet anyway but you never know). However I figured he fit here. He isn’t really an Establishment Democrat or a Progressive. But he has been aggressive against the Republicans from what I’ve seen of him.

Andy Beshear: A lot of people would say he is an Establishment Democrat. But his entire brand relies on him not being tied to the national Democratic establishment. He hasn’t gone very hard on Trump, but hasn’t been very friendly to him either. So I put him in the middle.

James Talarico: James Talarico’s brand relies on being disconnected to the national Democratic party while also being able to court both moderates and progressives. Due to campaigning in a red state in a nationalized race, he has had to work hard in courting Republicans and Independents. Henceforth, he goes below Beshear. I considered swapping him and Beshear, but once again decided to leave the placements as is.

Gavin Newsom: This one is pretty simple. Gavin Newsom is the ultimate resistlib candidate.

Pete Buttigieg: Buttigieg hasn't been as aggressive as Newsom, but he hasn't been totally restrained either. He seems to also lean heavily towards establishment politics.

Josh Shapiro: Josh Shapiro has both taken a restrained approach while leaning towards the Democratic establishment. (I don't have much to say for the establishment leaning candidates tbh)

Now, for the Republicans:

James Fishback: James Fishback has both taken some economically populist positions (like the OnlyFans tax) whilst also being an opponent of the Iran war and interventions in general. I could’ve put Tucker Carlson here, but Fishback represents the quadrant well enough. Even if he is a bit of a joke.

Josh Hawley: Hawley has long been known for his economically Populist positions. However, he also has not come out in opposition to the Iran war. So I figured he would be the best fit for this quadrant.

Tom Cotton: Tom Cotton is very hawkish, but he has also proposed some mildly unorthodox economic policies. Such as an $11 per hour minimum wage. This was a tough one to categorize. But I think he is the closest fit we can get.

JD Vance: JD Vance has at least supposedly voiced some reservations about Iran, and is an opponent to aiding Ukraine. He has taken a middle road to economics, much like Trump has.

Donald Trump: Donald Trump is pretty much the center of gravity within the Republican party. Naturally, he goes in the center.

Marco Rubio: Despite has reputation seemingly being that of a Bush-era Neocon on both economics and foreign policy. Marco Rubio has aligned himself with organizations like American Compass. An economically Populist think tank. He is obviously a more hawkish voice in the Republican party on Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran however.

Thomas Massie: Once again, this is a bit of an unorthodox placement. But Thomas Massie is a free trader, deficit hawk, and strong proponent of free market policy in general. He is also a vocal opponent of intervention abroad.

Ron DeSantis: Ron DeSantis is a more traditional Conservative with economically orthodox views who has managed to strike a good balance in appealing to Florida's suburban boomer constituency as well as the terminally online young male constituency. So I decided to put him here.

Nikki Haley: Nikki Haley is basically just an early-2000s Bush era Republican. She is the best fit for this quadrant.

That was obviously a pretty big wall of text, and it took a while to write. You could probably notice how the later descriptions were less detailed, I got pretty exhausted from writing all this lol. I hope you found this informative and accurate. Cheers!

Hello everyone. It is me, u/FrostyTheSnowman15. I am back again, and I am running for legislature. Feel free to ask me any questions about my platform, my credentials, or anything else you want to know about my campaign.

Now that I’ve gotten your attention. Hello everyone. I’m back again. And hopefully here to stay this time. I’ve heard the DOR is in some trouble but I don’t really know what’s going on. Feel free to ask me anything.

Here are mine:

1. Sherrod Brown
2. Walter Reuther
3. Hubert H. Humphrey
4. Robert F. Kennedy
5. Franklin D. Roosevelt
6. Lyndon Baines Johnson
7. Eleanor Roosevelt
8. Frances Perkins

Honorable Mention: John Locke

Hello everyone. A while back I made this post representing what I see as the two main types of moderates within the Democratic Party:
https://www.reddit.com/r/YAPms/comments/1t9kky4/two_types_of_moderate_democrats_2026/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

And obviously it got a lot of traction. So today I decided to make a similar photo collage to represent my own political views in full. Which I have always had trouble explaining. Obviously this collage can be seen above. Tell me what you think, and feel free to make your own and leave it in the replies!

It's pretty well known that Hillary Clinton ran a terrible campaign during the 2016 cycle. But what really went wrong? Well, everything. Progressives saw her as a corporate shitlib. Republicans saw her as the devil incarnate. Moderates weren't particularly inspired by her either. It was a complete mess. Even worse, her campaign was terribly overconfident and she didn't really campaign in what would end up being two of the most competitive states (Michigan and Wisconsin). Making her come off as arrogant and out of touch.

In my opinion, her main problem was authenticity. It felt like she was trying to be an Obama-style candidate. A uniter, who spoke of hope and change. Who believed not in red states, or blue states, but the United States. Who tried to make people feel good about themselves. Who was ever the optimist. The problem is, nobody really bought it. And truth be told I think people wanted something with more teeth. There was still a lot of discontentment by 2016, and Trump ran with it all the way to the White House.

So I think she instead should've ran as a strong, tough candidate and a fighter. Someone who would be ready to get to work on day one. The woman who fought against the healthcare industry in the 1990s. The woman who took down Osama Bin-Laden. She ran on this kind of sentiment a lot more heavily in 2008. And most people I've spoken to who watched both the 2008 and 2016 debates agree that she came off a lot better in 2008 (myself included). I think it might've also made her seem like less of an elitist, and might've cut into some of Trump's populist appeal. It definitely would've made her campaign feel more in touch and "legitimate" if that makes sense. I also think this means she's more aggressive against Trump. Which I think she needed to be.

I think she also needed a different running mate. He's a decent senator and a decent man. But Tim Kaine inspires literally nobody. He was just so boring and basically didn't motivate anyone who wasn't already guaranteed to come out and vote for Clinton. I think she should've picked Sherrod Brown. He would've given her more protectionist persona some legitimacy (she did run against the TPP in 2016, and pledged to revisit NAFTA, but I don't think anyone really believed in it, Brown would help on that front). And he would've helped her with the voters she did the worst with in our timeline.

Since this is meant to be a best case scenario, there's one more thing to cover: luck. I think Clinton had some things out of her control that could've gone better for her. In my opinion Trump was one of the better equipped candidates to pull off a win in 2016. So ideally she might be facing someone like Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz, rather than him. I might make a scenario where that happens, but we'll stick with Trump for this one.

I think that leaves two more things: Comey re-opening the emails case and her health-scare at the 9/11 memorial. After Access Hollywood most people thought Trump was done. That was meant to be the October Surprise. But those two events stopped the bleeding that Access Hollywood caused, and in a way ended up overshadowing it. So we'll assume those don't happen. Leaving Access Hollywood as the main October Surprise that dominates news coverage. I think this alone has Clinton narrowly win in 2016, but combined with everything else we changed, it has her win comfortably.

Anyway, this is my first effort post in this style. If you think I did a good job, let me know. And maybe I'll make more! If you don't, let me know about that as well.

Thanks for reading!

Inspired by this post, so show them some love:

https://www.reddit.com/r/YAPms/comments/1p6m9ye/two_types_of_democrats_in_2025/

I would've made one for Progressives. But since I do not consider myself a Progressive Democrat, I didn't think it'd be very good. If any Progressives want to make one of these for their side of the party, feel free to do so!

In my opinion, these are probably the two most accurate political tests you can take. Here are my results.

Here they are if you want to try them yourself. Feel free to share what you got in the replies!

https://sapplyvalues.github.io/

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/quiz/political-typology/

Here is an article on it: https://wjla.com/news/local/dynamic-pricing-maryland-consumer-surveillance-based-predicting-grocery-stores-delivery-retailers-online-apps-digital-wes-moore-ai-artificial-concerns-discounts-business-owners

Here is a video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITROfCXUIWM

I think that this is a very good move, and is at the very least a step in the right direction. It makes me feel much more confident in my support of Wes Moore for president in 2028, personally.

I have a top three that I consider to be the "best of the best". I usually swap between which one I want to be the nominee in 2028. But here is how I'd generally rank them:

1. Wes Moore
2. Mark Kelly
3. Andy Beshear